Commons Knowledge vs Copyright @Tia

Commons knowledge is open for anyone to contribute to. The idea of sharing your space with ideas excites me because it gives us a chance to experience different views and perspective on the same topic. Where in copyright it is a closed source and material that is copyright is limited. Our opinion does not matter because the material will not be changed. Commons knowledge gives individuals the chance to be free and distribute creativity, facts and ideas at one time. Of course I believe that people should be certified to make specific allegations but if you are certified then I support the idea of sharing space.

According to the American Library Association, “Copyright issues are among the most hotly contested issues in the legal and legislative world; billions of dollars are at stake.” Not only does the issue of copyright laws being broken everyday greatly effecting libraries, it is impacting the world. It is easy to break the civil law of copyright infringement because of the lack of security on the web. Commons knowledge has developed and is now more accepted.

Lievrouw brings up a great example of commons knowledge using the website Wikipedia. I have always thought that Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable informational site. However, I never took the time to appreciate the amount of equality the site offers. It is shared space and most information can be reliable and trusted by the person who over sees the site. It can be argued that non-copyright sources are unreliable. In this era the Internet is free and open to anyone. It has become idiot proof, even eight year olds are now surfing the web. It is a valid concern but I don’t think it is appropriate to say that only copyright is reliable. In some cases it is not.

Leave a Reply